THE MARCH CHRONICLESnstirred up a great deal of hostility innstrange quarters, where freedom ofnexpression used to defend everythingnbut unfashionable opinions. The Perspectivenessay on immigration evennattracted the attention of a newspaperneditor in Pine Bluff, Arkansas, namednPaul Greenberg. In an op-ed piecenpublished in the Washington Times,nGreenberg applies such terms as “hysteria,”n”xenophobic,” and “ugly alarum”nto Chronicles’ editor. This sort ofnresponse to any controversial questionnhas always been typical of those whonare able to muster neither facts nornargument to support their sentimentalnprejudices. Ordinarily, we should notntake any notice of such forays intonpolitical journalism, but in the conclusionnof his editorial, Mr. Greenbergndescended far enough into the gutternto attract attention:nThe way out for America lies innreviving the immigration laws ofnthe 1920s, according to Mr.nFleming. Those laws, he said,n”made it very clear that wenintended to be what we hadnalways been: a Europeannnation.” Preferably a WesternnEuropean nation, since that’snthe way the quotas were skewed.nIf those laws hadn’t beennchanged, the late LeopoldnTyrmand—a scholar whonornamented The RockfordnInstitute when it was turningnout invariably respectable work,na writer of charm, humility andninsight who devoted himself tondefending America to thenAmericans—might have had anmuch harder time getting intonthis country from his nativenPoland.nAs Sam Johnson used to say of his lessnhonorable opponents, “He lies and henknows he lies.” My argument, thatnimmigration policy should serve thennational interest rather than the needsnof the human race, is hardly startling,nand I explicitly argued that potentialncontribution to American societynCULTURAL REVOLUTIONSnshould be among the highest criteria fornadmission. America already gives somenpriority to persons of distinction innuseful fields of endeavor, and it was onnthat basis that we welcomed my latenfriend Leopold into the United States.nIf we did reinstitute a system of nationalnquotas reflecting the historical patternsnof settlement, it is hard to see how thenPoles could be affected in any way othernthan positively. There are already anhuge number of Americans who canntrace ancestors back to Poland, many ofnthem Polish Jews like Mr. Tyrmand.nLike all of us, Leopold was notnwithout his faults, but hypocrisy was notnone of them. One day we were discussingnimmigration policy and a vigorousnpiece we had just received from ClydenWilson, who seemed to be arguing thatnintellectual emigres to the US had donenas much harm as good. Tyrmand wasnnot at all perturbed. “Professor [which isnwhat he liked to call me], there are twonAmericas: Plymouth Rock [‘Better callnit Jamestown,’ I interjected] and EllisnIsland. What Ellis Island Americans likenme have to realize is that their Americanwould not be possible without thenPlymouth Rock — or Jamestown —nAmerica.” He went on to say that it wasnBritish institutions of responsible selfgovernmentnthat paved the way for thenopenness and generosity of Americanndemocracy. If we destroyed the institutionsnof Plymouth Rock, we would endnup like the rest of the worid.nLeopold and I differed over a greatnmany things, but not over immigration.nThe principles outlined in Chroniclesnwould actually boost immigration (ofnJews as well as Christians) from EasternnEurope, but Mr. Greenberg alreadynknew that.. He also knew, ornshould have known, that it was LeopoldnTyrmand who chose me as hisnsuccessor. To drag my late colleaguenand friend into such a discussion, whilenat the same time entirely misrepresentingnthe nature of the argument, Mr.nGreenberg has descended to the lowerndepths of yellow journalism. (TF)nnnFREE SPEECH has been one ofnthe great American luxuries, but accordingnto the University of Wisconsinnit may prove to be too expensive. InnApril its Board of Regents passed a rulenthat would make racial, ethnic, or sexistnepithets grounds for expulsion. Thisndoes not come out of nowhere: last fallnthe Zeta Beta Tau fraternity at thenMadison campus was disciplined fornhaving its pledges hold a mock slavenauction in blackface, and there havenbeen at least two other similar incidents.nThe original language contained anphrase stating that “epithets shall benpresumed to have been uttered withnthe required intent.” “Intent” was definednelsewhere in the document asnintent to demean a student or to createna hostile educational atmosphere. Withnthat phrase, the university was puttingnthe burden of proof on the accused;nany reported remark that was found (bynsome “objective” panel?) to be sexistnor otherwise offensive would be in andnof itself sufficient evidence of intent tonharm — and out the student would go.nAt the urging of the Wisconsin ACLU,nthat particular provision was dropped.nWhile it is some progress to havenremoved that phrase, it’s not much.nWisconsin has still taken a pick axe tonthe First Amendment. Even a privatenschool can hardly claim the moral highnground when it moves to restrain thatnmost fundamental practice of freenspeech — opening our mouths andntalking. As it is, the University ofnWisconsin is a public institution, fundednby the federal and state government,nand supposedly subject to those guaranteesnin the federal and statenconstitutions that protect a person’snright to open his mouth and make anfool (or worse) of himselfnWisconsin is not alone. As NatnHentoff reports in the May Progressive,nthe University of Buffalo Law Schoolnfaculty voted unanimously for an”Statement Regarding IntellectualnFreedom, Tolerance, and Political Harassment”nthat says in part that thenstudents’ right to free speech within thenlaw school must be limited by “thenJULY 1989/5n